New disclosure rules proposed for issue advertising

After brutal Michigan judicial elections in 2012, Rich Robinson described the thinly veiled issue advertising paid for by outside groups, particularly targeting judicial races, as little more than a “drive-by shooting.”

Robinson, of the nonpartisan Michigan Campaign Finance Network, says new rules proposed by Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson Thursday morning are a step in the right direction, at least on the surface.

But while Johnson was holding a conference call to require disclosure by those who pay for issue advertising in elections, Robinson said a Michigan Senate committee was moving to circumvent disclosure by trying to exempt issue ad spending from disclosure as long as there’s no “express advocacy” for or against a specific candidate.

“I felt good for all of about a half hour,” Robinson said. “At face value, I’m encouraged by what Johnson put out this morning, but the subsequent legislative action leads me to believe this ain’t going to happen. It’s about letting money have its way without limits and without accountability.”

Johnson said her proposal targets political ads that try to persuade voters about the worthiness or unworthiness of a candidate or proposal without actually using the words “vote for” or “elect.”

She said the ads often encourage voters to contact a specific candidate, as in “call candidate Smith and tell her she shouldn’t ignore senior citizens” or “go online to let candidate Jones know you care about how he is wasting tax dollars.”

Johnson said the administrative rule she’s proposing would require sponsors of those types of ads, whether positive or negative, to file formal reports with the state and meet all current campaign finance disclosure requirements, including who is paying for the ads.

Those requirements would apply for ads appearing in the 30 days leading up to a primary election and in the 60 days leading up to a general election. The proposal would affect all election advertising, including print, online, TV and radio spots.

The State Bar of Michigan earlier this year requested increased disclosure for judicial ads after so-called “dark money” ad spending in the 2012 elections. But Johnson said the Michigan Campaign Finance Act doesn’t allow special exceptions just for judicial candidates.

Instead, she’s proposing across-the-board disclosure of who pays for issue advertisements during elections.

“People very much want, support and deserve transparency,” Johnson said. “The ultimate winners are the voters.”

Whether any new disclosure rule would take effect for the 2014 elections is questionable, however.

The proposed administrative rule changes to the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulation faces a typical 12-15 month process before final approval.

Robinson, at the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, issued a 104-page report on campaign funding in Michigan after the 2012 election.

Oakland County Circuit Court races were the most expensive in the state, Robinson noted, with incumbent judges Leo Bowman, Phyllis McMillin, Denise Langford Morris, Wendy Potts and Micheal Warren up for election and two challengers, Deborah Carley and William Rollstin, on the ballot.

In the race for two full terms and a partial term on the Michigan Supreme Court, Robinson said the campaign was the “most expensive and least transparent in history.”

Supreme Court candidates nominated by the two major political parties raised $3.38 million through their campaign committees, and political action committees independently spent $1.6 million.

But issue advertising that was not reported to the Bureau of Elections totaled $13.85 million. Robinson said he documented the undisclosed spending from the public files of state broadcasters and cable systems.

Voters elected incumbent justices Stephen Markman and Brian Zahra to the high court. Both were nominated by the Republican Party. Voters also elected newcomer Bridget McCormack to a full term. She was nominated by the Democratic Party.

“Undisclosed spending in supreme court campaigns thwarts the voters’ right to know who is supporting the candidates, as it does in any campaign where undisclosed spending occurs,” Robinson’s report noted.

About the Author

Charles Crumm leads the DataWorks team for Digital First Media in Michigan. He also covered politics for The Oakland Press. Read his Elections, Politics and Policy blog at http://oaklandmichiganpolitics.blogspot.com/. Reach the author at charlie.crumm@oakpress.com
or follow Charles on Twitter: @crummc.